BACKGROUND: Failure of endoprosthetic reconstruction with conventional stems due to aseptic loosening remains a challenge for maintenance of limb integrity and function. The Compress(®) implant (Biomet Inc, Warsaw, IN, USA) attempts to avoid aseptic failure by means of a unique technologic innovation. Though the existing literature suggests survivorship of Compress(®) and stemmed implants is similar in the short term, studies are limited by population size and followup duration. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We therefore compared (1) the rate of aseptic failure between Compress(®) and cemented intramedullary stems and (2) evaluated the overall intermediate-term implant survivorship. METHODS: We reviewed 26 patients with Compress(®) implants and 26 matched patients with cemented intramedullary stems. The patients were operated on over a 3-year period. Analysis focused on factors related to implant survival, including age, sex, diagnosis, infection, aseptic loosening, local recurrence, and fracture. Minimum followup was 0.32 years (average, 6.2 years; range, 0.32-9.2 years). RESULTS: Aseptic failure occurred in one (3.8%) patient with a Compress(®) implant and three (11.5%) patients with cemented intramedullary stems. The 5-year implant survival rate was 83.5% in the Compress(®) group and 66.6% in the cemented intramedullary stem group. CONCLUSIONS: The Compress(®) implant continues to be a reliable option for distal femoral limb salvage surgery. Data regarding aseptic failure is encouraging, with equivalent survivorship against cemented endoprosthetic replacement at intermediate-term followup. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
BACKGROUND: Failure of endoprosthetic reconstruction with conventional stems due to aseptic loosening remains a challenge for maintenance of limb integrity and function. The Compress(®) implant (Biomet Inc, Warsaw, IN, USA) attempts to avoid aseptic failure by means of a unique technologic innovation. Though the existing literature suggests survivorship of Compress(®) and stemmed implants is similar in the short term, studies are limited by population size and followup duration. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We therefore compared (1) the rate of aseptic failure between Compress(®) and cemented intramedullary stems and (2) evaluated the overall intermediate-term implant survivorship. METHODS: We reviewed 26 patients with Compress(®) implants and 26 matched patients with cemented intramedullary stems. The patients were operated on over a 3-year period. Analysis focused on factors related to implant survival, including age, sex, diagnosis, infection, aseptic loosening, local recurrence, and fracture. Minimum followup was 0.32 years (average, 6.2 years; range, 0.32-9.2 years). RESULTS:Aseptic failure occurred in one (3.8%) patient with a Compress(®) implant and three (11.5%) patients with cemented intramedullary stems. The 5-year implant survival rate was 83.5% in the Compress(®) group and 66.6% in the cemented intramedullary stem group. CONCLUSIONS: The Compress(®) implant continues to be a reliable option for distal femoral limb salvage surgery. Data regarding aseptic failure is encouraging, with equivalent survivorship against cemented endoprosthetic replacement at intermediate-term followup. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Authors: Muhammad Umar Jawad; Michael C Cheung; Jennifer Clarke; Leonidas G Koniaris; Sean P Scully Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2010-06-01 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: S J Ham; H Schraffordt Koops; R P Veth; J R van Horn; W M Molenaar; H J Hoekstra Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 1998 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Jacob Bickels; James C Wittig; Yehuda Kollender; Robert M Henshaw; Kristen L Kellar-Graney; Issac Meller; Martin M Malawer Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2002-07 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Mark Pitkin; Charles Cassidy; Raghuveer Muppavarapu; James Raymond; Maxim Shevtsov; Oleg Galibin; Serge D Rousselle Journal: J Rehabil Res Dev Date: 2013
Authors: Nicholas M Bernthal; Vishal Hegde; Stephen D Zoller; Howard Y Park; Jason H Ghodasra; Daniel Johansen; Frederick Eilber; Fritz C Eilber; Chandhanarat Chandhanayingyong; Jeffrey J Eckardt Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2017-10-29 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Krista A Goulding; Adam Schwartz; Steven J Hattrup; R Lor Randall; Donald Lee; Damian M Rispoli; Daniel M Lerman; Christopher Beauchamp Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2017-02-13 Impact factor: 4.176